[chrisawhitmore]

The Common Fisheries Policy has been going for over 30 years now, and a taxpayer's alliance study has estimated its cost to the UK taxpayer at some £2.8 billion pounds per year, factoring in the destruction of the UK fishing industry and fish stocks, the dumping of tens of thousands of tonnes of usable fish to meet with CFP regulations and even the £2 million DEFRA have spent trying to find ways to alleviate the harmful impacts of that dumping (clue: the answer is to stop doing it).

Can anyone justify why the British taxpayer is being asked to pay for the privilege of higher prices, lower fish stocks and the death of a once great national industry?

Here's the report: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/CFP.pdf

As always your comments would be very much appreciated.

[Morgsie]

There is talk of reforming the Common Fisheries Policy

[minthumbugs]

hmm..according to my chemistry textbook 'international cooperation' is the key to all our problems.

I have to wonder who signs off these things that organisations like DEFRA do. There was a £10 million bridge built near our house, and after it was completed someone went and looked at the plan and it turns out they built it in the wrong place. How does this happen?!

[Llamageddon]

I'd love to see the methodology used in this study. The named authors phd is not even in a related field which is usually a fantastic bull**** indicator.

[meenu89]

(Original post by Morgsie)
There is talk of reforming the Common Fisheries Policy

There's a surprise

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
I'd love to see the methodology used in this study. The named authors phd is not even in a related field which is usually a fantastic bull**** indicator.

Yep. When it comes to politics, you can't work outside of your degree field. That is why Margaret Thatcher never rose above minister for Science, John Major never got in at all, and Clement Atlee was confined to historical research.

Dr Lee Rotherham has plenty of relevant experience, having acted as an advisor to numerous shadow foreign secretaries, as well as helping to author the bumper book of government waste. As for the methodology, it is set out quite nicely in the report, I suggest you give it a read.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by meenu89)
There's a surprise

There's also talk of reforming the CAP. There has been since about 1973.

[callum9999]

While something needs to be done about the waste urgently, it is by no means as simple as people make it out to be.

The reason those caps are in place is to stop fishing certain species until they reach extinction. If you announce that everyone can land their accidentally caught fish, then you will suddenly find that the amount of fish "accidentally caught" will sky-rocket.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Yep. When it comes to politics, you can't work outside of your degree field. That is why Margaret Thatcher never rose above minister for Science, John Major never got in at all, and Clement Atlee was confined to historical research.

Dr Lee Rotherham has plenty of relevant experience, having acted as an advisor to numerous shadow foreign secretaries, as well as helping to author the bumper book of government waste. As for the methodology, it is set out quite nicely in the report, I suggest you give it a read.

Politics =/= research.

There is nothing remotely approaching a methodology in that. There are a lot of assertions, a lot of anecdotes, a lot of non sequiturs. There's nothing to show that the correlation is caused by policy and indeed the trend shown starts before the CFP was introduced. Whether it is correct or not, and I'm certainly no fan of the CFP or CAP for that matter, the actual piece is just really bad.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
Politics =/= research.

There is nothing remotely approaching a methodology in that. There are a lot of assertions, a lot of anecdotes, a lot of non sequiturs. There's nothing to show that the correlation is caused by policy and indeed the trend shown starts before the CFP was introduced. Whether it is correct or not, and I'm certainly no fan of the CFP or CAP for that matter, the actual piece is just really bad.

Fair enough. As far as I can tell, it is more a survey and collation of existing research (something a person with a doctorate in history would be suited to) rather than any new research, which could be why it lacks what you would like to see in terms of methodology. In any case the 8.2 Confirming the Ballpark section does suggest that the numbers are in the correct general area based on other studies, and the raw numbers taken form sources including the EU, UN and the UK government are likely to be pretty sound (if not biased in favour of the CAP). The report may not be the best, but that does not change the facts underlying it.

[jacketpotato]

You haven't actually explained whats wrong with the policy. You've just made a bunch of assertions.

I don't think the problems faced by the fishing industry are the EU's fault. You can't blame the EU for overfishing. Fish stocks have been dwindling by some time. We need control of fish stocks, the simplest way to do that is quotas and some dumping is an inevitable consequence of quotas. I don't see why this would be any different if we left the EU and managed overfishing ourselves.

You say its the death of a "great British industry" anymore. Fishing is massively unprofitable and dangerous and noone wants to do it. Its like coal mining was in the 1970s. This is not the EU's fault.

[Joluk]

So you want to go back to the north sea being a giant free-for all in terms of fishing? The fish will probably be gone in 10 years.

I'm not saying its perfect, and it does seem to disproportionately harm the UK fishing industry, but there was an important reason it was brought in.